The Executive Committee of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) made a number of decisions on Tuesday regarding the performance of Russian and Belarusian athletes in neutral status at the 2024 Olympics in Paris. The key thing in the IOC verdict: “neutrals” will not be allowed to march in the parade of athletes at the opening ceremony, they can be punished for failure to comply with neutrality criteria after the Games, and during the awards ceremony they will be allowed to listen to a melody specially written for this occasion. In other words, they will make you feel like “second-class citizens.”
Somewhere, of course, one can sympathize with the IOC. Thomas Bach and company could have said two years ago to those who threatened to boycott the Olympic Games because of the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes in them something like what the hero of the film “Gentlemen of Fortune” said: “To hell with you — the money is yours, it will be ours.” «. Which, in fact, is what the tennis and hockey professional organizations did then, for example, by supporting the principle of “sport outside of politics” not in words, but in deeds and rejecting any attempts to manipulate them. The IOC first issued some recommendations, then others, and eventually drove itself into such a swamp that it is forced to come up with ridiculous excuses so as not to completely drown in it.
Take, for example, the decision to exclude neutral athletes from participating in the parade of athletes at the opening ceremony of the Games in Paris. Everyone understands why this was actually done — again, because of fear of a boycott of the ceremony by Ukraine and the countries that joined it. But the IOC is forced to explain this by saying that delegations are participating in the parade, and athletes with Russian and Belarusian passports are individual and neutral. Well, to be frank, refugees are not exactly a delegation either — but no one denies them the use of all the rights that Olympic participants have.
And the reference to the precedent with athletes from Yugoslavia, to whom the same approach was applied at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, only means an admission that just as, excuse the rudeness, the IOC now spreads rot on the Russians and Belarusians, so it then spread rot on the Yugoslavs — for whom At that time the speakers were mainly Serbs. The parallel is obvious. They want to humiliate us and make us second-class citizens. Of course, every Olympian wants first of all to walk through the stadium at the opening ceremony, and not to watch a theatrical performance, where, perhaps, they will be allowed to flash a flashlight or wave a piece of paper at the right moments.
As for the closing ceremony of the Olympics in Paris, the IOC allows the participation of Russians and Belarusians in it in a neutral status, since it is attended “not by delegations, but by all athletes together.” But again, with a caveat — a decision on this issue will be made later. The question is — why not now? The answer is the same: the above-mentioned ardent opponents of any participation of our athletes in the Games will immediately “kick.” So the IOC considered it good to act on the principle “don’t put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.” There is still time to persuade potential boycotters not to get into the bottle.
Now about the flag and anthem for AIN — individual neutral athletes, it is under this abbreviation that Russian and Belarusian athletes will compete in competitions. The flag is a turquoise colored cloth with these three letters enclosed in a circle. The anthem is a melody created specifically by the IOC to be performed at awards ceremonies for neutral athletes. Unfortunately, at the press conference following the first day of the executive committee’s work, they did not say who was the author of this “song without words.” But they explained why it was needed at all.
“We didn’t want to take music that was already in the public field. As you remember, Tchaikovsky’s First Concerto was previously used, which alienated many. In the writing process, we tried to create music that athletes would listen to with dignity, so that it would inspire them.” , — said James McLeod, director of the IOC department for relations with national Olympic committees.
Well, we can only laugh at the words that Tchaikovsky could “alienate” someone. Let music critics evaluate the value of the created “replacement” work, but the first, so to speak, amateurish impression is that such a melody can only inspire you to buy earplugs in advance. As they say, nothing. However, perhaps this was precisely the goal of the authors of the “anthem of neutrals” — to make him feel like a nobody.
Another topic where the IOC is forced to helplessly justify itself is the condemnation of the Friendship Games. During the day, the organization issued a special release full of ridiculous theses, and in the evening, at a press conference, the IOC bosses continued to label the Russian idea as “politicized.” And threaten with potential sanctions — without any clear explanation for what exactly. It even got to the point where one Western journalist asked a direct question: “Do you want to ban athletes from competing?” “No, athletes can compete, this is our basic principle, but these Games are politicized, so we accepted this statement, and the issue of sanctions will be discussed later,” McLeod replied, and it seemed that at that moment he even felt a little embarrassed for that nonsense , which he said.
The IOC also created a panel to assess the compliance of each candidate with a Russian and Belarusian passport to participate in the Games with neutral status. It included IOC Vice President Nicole Hevertz, a representative of the IOC Ethics Commission, former Spanish basketball player Pau Gasol, and a representative of the IOC Athletes Commission, South Korean Yoo Seung Min, an Olympic champion in table tennis. She will review the dossier of each athlete individually. The two main criteria for neutrality are the lack of active support for the military forces and a contract with the armed forces and security services.
Regarding both points, McLeod gave reason for cautious optimism — this is the only drop of at least some positive in that stream of discriminatory decisions by the IOC. He clearly explained: Russian and Belarusian athletes will not be forced to sign any declarations condemning the CBO. In particular, the President of the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) Stanislav Pozdnyakov feared this, saying that signing documents for participation in the Paris Olympics could lead to problems with Russian legislation. McLeod noted that only agreement with the principles of participation in the Olympics will need to be signed — but every athlete going to Paris will have to do this, and this document only speaks of supporting the peaceful mission of the Olympic Charter. Which, in fact, no one argued with.
As for the second point, members of the IOC leadership who were present at the press conference were twice asked a specific question — is belonging to the CSKA and Dynamo clubs considered a contract with the armed forces and security services? And both times the speakers avoided answering, saying that the commission would consider each potential Olympian on an individual basis. And this may also mean that the army and Dynamo players may be allowed to participate in the Olympics — although, of course, one cannot be sure of this, since the IOC panel can make any decisions and not explain them. And if you consider that at the press conference they called information from the Ukrainian side perhaps the best source for checking whether AINs comply with the criteria of neutrality — even more so. The words that an Olympic participant must remain neutral after the Games are also eloquent. Otherwise — sanctions, although, of course, the athlete may no longer care about them.
Свежие комментарии